If We Let The Secessionists Go, What Would Their 'Nation' Be Like?

Where you are not wrong ... It may be important to note that President Buchanan was reluctant to go to war to avoid pushing the other "slave-states" into the Confederacy.
There were only seven initial states to secede from the Union ... And he was hoping that attempts to negotiate over bloodshed would keep the other states in line a little longer.

 

Until the debacle at Ft Sumter Federal troops had been withdrawing from states that had seceded without incident for months. Under orders from President Lincoln commanders were ordered to keep their troops in garrison until a relief expedition arrived to evacuate them. All men and equipment were to be removed in an orderly fashion and provocative actions avoided. Commanders were under specific orders that arms and ammunition were not to be surrendered, given away or otherwise transferred to the new states.

Ships would arrive at coastal forts and the troops would make an orderly withdrawal, taking their arms and ammunition with them. The same was planned for Ft Sumter and an expedition was on its way. Hotheads in Charleston, intent on not letting the guns at the fort be removed, surrounded the fort with guns, demanded its capitulation, and fired upon it before the expedition could arrive to evacuate the fort.

Once Federal troops came under attack the President had no choice but to declare the secession a rebellion.

 

"until a relief expedition arrived to evacuate them"??

Never heard that one before. My understanding is that the relief expedition intended to resupply the fort, not evacuate it.

 

The first ships to attempt the evacuation of Ft Sumter were three civilian ships under charter that carried few supplies and had mostly empty holds, hardly a resupply. They were turned away as the pilots refused to board them. This happened a few weeks before the fort was fired upon and is little mentioned in histories, crucial as it is to understanding the moment. By the time the fort was fired upon a much stronger relief expedition had been mounted that was intended to force its way into the harbour and defend the removal of the garrison. The idea that the US planned to reinforce and hold Ft Sumter indefinitely is pretty ridiculous considering the state of the US Navy, which at the time was in poor shape, fully engaged in the wholesale abandonment of its own installations and had not nearly enough ships to take on something like that.

 

Oh hells bells what a coincidence. Mrs. Tuna (she who must be obeyed) and I were in Red River earlier this summer. Did some fishing, drove to Taos for a little shopping. We do an annual thing to Northern NM or Southern CO every year. As for Taos, yeah I hear ya, our waiter at Doc Martins seemed to think I ought to be excited or impressed because some Hollywood movie star was in town and 'omg, vapors" maybe I could actually see him!!! Yeah, ok dude, put yer panties back on..... are my enchiladas gonna be coming any time soon?

 

Do you have any links concerning this evacuation?

 

I suppose these links won't be forthcoming?

 

Yeah, and while these "so-called" evacuations were to take place......Southern farms were being burned, women were being raped and families were destroyed. Here's a few links, as an example of what actually went one BEFORE Fort Sumter or the War Between the States started....not that I'm a big fan of some info sites used here, I expect that using them may provided a certain amount of appreciation by some here who do appreciate the likes of wikipedia and will accept the truths of the injustices toward Southerners BEFORE the so-called "CIVIL" war).

The likes of men and groups mentioned below attacked folks, farms and families whether they were actually slave owners or not and their barbarism was just one of the reasons for the counter attacks that Southerners felt that they had to do in protecting their fellow Southerner. Some of these monsters who attacked Southern folk were sanctioned privately and some were a "secret arm" of the military. The likes of Wild Bill and others were among these barbarians and if they had attacked my neighbor....I would have joined the Confederacy as well.

John Brown (captured and hung in VA under the command of Robert E. Lee)
http://history1800s.about.com/od/americanoriginals/p/johnbrownbio.htm

Jaywalkers/Red Legs 1849
the Union command issued Order No. 11, the forced depopulation of specified Missouri border lands. Intended to eliminate sanctuary and sustenance for pro-Confederate guerrilla fighters, it was enforced by troops from Kansas, and provided an excuse for a final round of plundering, arson, and summary execution perpetrated against the civilian population of western Missouri. In the words of one observer, "the Kansas-Missouri border was a disgrace even to barbarism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayhawker

Below is the link to the TRUTH about Fort Sumter:

[It was obvious that Major Anderson and his men couldn't hold out for long at Fort Sumter, so the Buchanan administration sent a merchant ship to Charleston to bring provisions to the fort. The ship, Star of the West, was fired on by secessionist shore batteries on January 9, 1861, and was unable to reach the fort.] http://history1800s.about.com/od/civilwar/a/fort-sumter-attack.htm

Yeah...and to the argument about the War Between the States being about slavery, ole Abe was a real good open minded liberator of blacks and EQUALITY for them as a people. It seems that the below quote and the famous one we all know and have used in this and other forums is SPOT ON when it comes to revealing the true reason that was NOT the purpose behind Lincoln's attack on the South and his refusal to accept the secession of the States that the North was overly and unfairly taxing. And I quote from Lincoln:

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races: that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people."

- Abraham Lincoln speaking in Charleston, Illinois during his fourth debate with Democrat Stephen Douglas, 1858

Yeah....that's real freedom from you mr. Abe Lincoln. You "liberated" many blacks (and whites) to be free to STARVE.

 

AGAIN....Below is the link to the TRUTH about Fort Sumter:

[It was obvious that Major Anderson and his men couldn't hold out for long at Fort Sumter, so the Buchanan administration sent a merchant ship to Charleston to bring provisions to the fort. The ship, Star of the West, was fired on by secessionist shore batteries on January 9, 1861, and was unable to reach the fort.] http://history1800s.about.com/od/civ...ter-attack.htm

No mention of evacuating....more like they were digging in like an Alabama tick and the secession State who had given them a way out and ample time to do so was going to have none of it (on their soil).

 

the right would create a Christian nation like Mexico, no safety nets, lot of poor

and like Mexico, their citizens would be hopping the border to get back to America

 

Ya, the way liberal democrats have managed places like Chicago, Detroit, and the whole state of California, I'm sure people will be lining up to get back in.

 

Except for the fact, that with the exception of Texas, the Blue states have the largest economies. The answer is, that things would be fine. The new "liberal" state would be more prosperous, because its areas are already more prosperous, but as long as Texas was in with them, they would be fine. However, if it was just the so called "deep south" it would be a problem.

PS. If they succeeded, maybe southerners would go back to their roots. For years the south was the base for the anti-business but small government Democratic party (a far more logical position than being pro-business and small government or anti-business and big government proponent). If the identity politics which dominate now went away, hopefully southerners would find themselves more willing to open their eyes to the reality that the Republican party, or any other similar party, is diametrically opposed to their economic interests...... Maybe not.

 

Ya, with the exception of California, Texas has a larger economy than every blue state combined. And, do you honestly think industry is going to stick around in liberal utopiaville? Not a chance. So ya, good luck with that.

- - - Updated - - -

Ya, with the exception of California, Texas has a larger economy than every blue state combined. And, do you honestly think industry is going to stick around in liberal utopiaville? Not a chance. So ya, good luck with that.

 

Except of course, your statement is objectively false. Google is your friend. New York and Texas have reasonably similar sized economies, so that the next 2 economies from solidly blue states (New York and Illinois) have a larger economy than Texas 1.8 trillion to 1.45 trillion (that is ignoring Florida, which is a swing state). On top of that, it all depends on how you define a blue state. If you go by the most simple method (though maybe not the most accurate) of who won the state in the 2012 election, 8 out of the top 9 states in GDP are blue. And 15 out of the top 20. Alternatively, 6 out of the bottom 10 are red states (though to be fair, some of those, like Wyoming, actually have high GDP per capita).

And to answer your question, the answer is without a resounding yes. Don't allow partisanship to blind you. Business goes where the money is. New York is the financial center of the globe. That isn't going to change simply because Biloxi decided to have no corporate taxes.

 

Wow frody, you couldn't be more wrong. Look at every "blue" state on any election map. It actually looks like specks of blue surrounded by red. So if you wanna keep it in simple terms of blue vs. red, liberal land has no prayer. Next you are delusional if you actually think industry would stick around and deal with progressive taxation. Hell, All I have to point out the automotive industries moving south alongside Boeing. Its called simple economics, and apparently its not your friend.

 

A lot of succession enthusiasts have no idea what their newly independent state would need to do to get by in today's world. They seem to think that they can just leave and everything will be the same except there will be no Federal government over them. What they do not understand is that the Federal government deals with all their international relations and if they leave they will have to take on that headache themselves, at huge expense.

The sheer number of new laws and regulations and international treaties they would need to adopt to meet standards for everything from banking to cell phones to airport security just to keep normal travel and trade for their citizens would take legions of lawyers just to write up and pass through the legislature. The expense of succession would exceed the GDP of most states by the time it met all the expected obligations of a sovereign state.

There was a lot of hand wringing about this in Texas once it was pointed out that if Texas was an independent nation it would need to spend $Billions to fund embassies and delegates to treaty organizations that are vital to defending the interests of critical industries and if it did not many of them would leave for the US, which is well established and has a long history of protecting business interests abroad. Texas would also have to spend $Billion, maybe tens of $Billions to protect its borders, which are wide open to the east west and north. It would need to negotiate entry into many treaty organizations and contribute to their funding and enforcement.

Succession is not so easy as it appears. If the whole idea is to save money it becomes a very fraught proposition, especially if you consider that most red states receive more in Federal spending than the pay in taxes while most blue states receive less. Blue states are not considering succession, if all the red states leave the share of Federal spending to blue states will increase considerably.

 

Doesn't seem to be a problem for Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Singapore, etc. All successful nations with a lower GDP per capita than Texas. Hell, the GDP per capita of Texas is almost twice that of the EU. I think they'd be okay.

BTW, I'm still waiting on the links for the assertions that you made a week ago...

 

They "need" federal money because of taxes, regulations and other stupid policies making state economies impossible to maintain in the first place.

There are plenty of small nations around the world that do just fine.

 

So good riddance to bad rubbish IMO. Unfortunately it won't work.

The ones with a coastline might get along a little better than others, (though it really doesn't help Mississippi and Alabama all that much now) and they could align themselves with each other and foreign states to defray some of the expenses but the above would still apply, and foreign countries will not help them out for free. Generally, I think the US would go to war with them pretty quick as they would be founded mainly to persecute all their minorities who would still be loyal Americans, and ethnic cleansing of your nationals by another country is a legitimate casus belli.

The real irony would be that the first one I see happening is the second Great Indian War, Montana vs the Native nations, backed by the USA.

 

Oh, great. Another one that sees a genocidal maniac around every corner. Some of you guys need to get a grip on reality and realize that not everyone who disagrees with you wants to kill black people.

 

Yea I have, Texas won't have to pay bills for the big ugly blue state like Californicationia.

Seriously, california has like, 3 best natural ports in the whole wide world, yet it was surpassed by Florida on import/export.

 

Not everyone who disagrees with me wants to turn traitor to America. Those who want to secede generally want to kill the Hispanics, muslims, Jews, gays, and Native nations too, hell, some of them want the Catholics. Most of them are willing to keep the women, but they'll have to know their place.

I realize America has become polarized but favoring secession remains a fairly radical position, with all that entails.

 

Uhh..those three ports are the ONLY big ports they have, and I think two of them aren't natural at all. CA has an emerging coastline, generally very straight with few incursions. Nevertheless, CA has the 8th largest economy in the WORLD, not just the US, so I think they're doing all right, especially for a desert.

Florida is surprisingly prosperous, that is true, beating even Texas for Cattle raising, frex. Many people attribute this to the hardworking Cubans, who the secessionists would throw out first.

 

Of course. Then again, here in the real world, that isn't the case at all since most of the major secessionist movements in the US have nothing to do with race and some of them are even being spearheaded by *gasp* minorities *gasp*.

I know that isn't welcome news to paranoiacs and conspiracy theorists but we are limited to facts that are real and should leave the imaginary theories to storytellers.

 

Almost all red states use more federal money than they pay in federal taxes. Texas is the only red state that uses less than they pay.